ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience

Theocharis Tsoutsos, Efpraxia Maria, Vassilis Mathioudakis
Technical University of Crete, University Campus, GR 73100 Chania, Greece Received 14 March 2006; accepted 16 October 2006

Abstract This paper aims to present the procedure under which a sustainable plant, like a small hydroelectric plant (SHP), can be installed and deployed, especially in countries with complicated administrative and legislative systems. Those must be dened by the rules that characterize sustainable spatial planning, which aims at the environmental protection, the insurance of better living conditions and nally at the economic development within the frame of the principle of sustainability and its three basic dimensions: social, economical and environmental. The main principles of spatial planning are accepted from the jurisprudence of the Hellenic Council of State, either as an appropriate condition for the protection of important ecosystems or as specic expression of the principle of prevention of environmental damage. In this framework it is accepted that the development is experienced, initially to a total and general planning, whose essential part is the assessment and modication of distributed land uses. Besides, the main characteristics of the siting of SHPs and the criteria demanded for their smooth integration and operation are presented. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Small hydro; Renewable energy; Spatial planning; Renewables-to-electricity; Environmental legislation

1. Introduction Despite the favorable RES potential in Greece, the growth of the renewable electricity is slow, mainly due to the complicated administrative system, as well as the
Abbreviations: AET, Approval of Environmental Terms; AODPA, Area of Organized Development of Productive Activities; CoS, Council of State; CSF, Community Support Framework; EIAS, Environmental Impact Assessment Study; ERA, Energy Regulatory Authority; ESHA, European Small Hydro Association; ET, Environmental Terms; EU, European Union; GDP, Gross Domestic Product; GHG, Greenhouse Gases; HP, Hydroelectric Plant; JMD, Joint Ministerial Decision; MA, Ministry of Agriculture; MD, Ministry of Development; MEPPPW, Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works; MNE, Ministry of National Economy; PEIAE, Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment and Evaluation; PEEE, Preliminary Environmental Estimate and Evaluation; PPC, Public Power Corporation; RTD, Research and Technology Development; RES, renewable energy sources; SH, small hydro; SHP, Small Hydro Plant; TES, Total Environmental Study Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 28210 37825; fax: +30 28210 37846. E-mail address: tsoutsos@mred.tuc.gr (T. Tsoutsos). 0301-4215/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

control of legality that the Hellenic Council of State (CoS) is forced to impose (Papadimitriou and Papakonstantinou, 2004). Besides, the lack of spatial planning is also a major barrier that concerns the realization of RES plants in Greece, where the problem of the enactment of land uses is dominant. Land uses cannot deal with only the siting of plants that use RES. This interdependence between spatial planning and environmental protection conrms also the jurisprudence of the CoS. The main principles of spatial planning are accepted from the jurisprudence of the CoS, either as an appropriate condition for the protection of important ecosystems or as specic expression of the principle of prevention of environmental damage. In this framework it is accepted that development is experienced, initially to a total and broader planning, whose integral element consists of the assessment and modication of current land uses. The lack of general planning (especially of spatial plans) and procedures that determine environmental impacts of SHPs, try to cover the jurisprudence of the CoS, by

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] Table 1 Allocation of installed SHPs (o10 MW) in EU (in MW) Country Italy France Spain Germany Austria Poland Greece Total EU 25 2004 2.591,9 2.040,0 1.748,0 1.564,0 994,0 285,0 82,0 11.534,6 2005 2.591,9 2.040,0 1.788,0 1.584,0 994,0 318,0 89,0 11.643,5 Growth (%) 0,0 0,0 2,3 1,3 0 11,6 8,5 0,9

explaining comparative terms of national and European legislation. Within judgments, the CoS not only detected the necessity of spatial planning, which is considered as a prerequisite for the accomplishment of specic activities, but also gave a broad interpretation of environmental impacts when regarding large and complicated plants. In this way, a complete evaluation is required so that it is not limited to the consequences resulting from the implementation of a specic spatial plan. Therefore, it is necessary to realize the plant in the framework of approved spatial planning so that the reversible consequences for the environment and for the life quality can be avoided. So the main motivation for the present research was the recent judgments of the CoS, according to which, the Approval of Environmental Terms (AETs) of SHPs (and other plants that use RES, mainly wind parks) is canceled (see decisions 2569/04 of the CoS and 3995/04 especially for SHPs). Furthermore, the main characteristics of the siting of HPs and the criteria, demanded for the smooth integration and operation. It is taken for granted that the accurate planning, mainly meaning spatial planning, is a prerequisite for the accomplishment of the sustainability principle and its three basic dimensions: social, economical and environmental. It is also obvious that the most important decisions about the preservation of natural resources and ecological balance are obtained in the stage of planning. So during the constitution of relevant plans it is recommended to estimate these impacts. As concerns the legal system, the problems are detected in the complex licensing framework and in the timeconsuming legal acts (Kaldellis, 2006). More precisely, the involvement of many administrative bodies and stages during the licensing procedure blocks the RES promotion. The aim of this paper is to present the procedure under which a sustainable plant, like a SHP, can be installed and deployed, especially in countries with a complicated administrative and legislative system. Those must be dened by the rules that characterize sustainable spatial planning, which aims at the environmental protection, the insurance of better living conditions and nally at the economic development within the frame of the principle of sustainability. Emphasis was also put on the criteria that a candidate region must fulll in order to deploy a SHP, which are mainly connected with the main principles of the environmental policy. Any reference to specic examples from the jurisprudence aims at describing the main spirit underlying the CoS decisions regarding spatial planning and the assessment of the environmental impacts for the installation of complicated plants, which are not included in greater plans. 2. Impacts of hydroelectric plants The European small hydro (SH) capacity (dened as being strictly less than 10 MW) was at 11 534.6 MW for

Source: Systemes Solaires (2006).

2004 (Table 1). For the moment, it is estimated that the total installed European capacity for 2005 was at 11 643.5 MW, i.e. an additional 108.9 MW versus 2004 (Systemes Solaires, 2006). The rational dissemination and understanding of the benets of hydroelectric energy, as well as the rest RES, is limited by the current negative regulative framework of the energy policy; the prerequisite to improve this framework is the understanding of the advantages of these plants in long-term and the knowledge of the real environmental impacts. Based on the predictions for the extension of the SHP impacts that tend to be accomplished in a region, the major planning directions of an SHP are dened. The most important and indicant impacts from the installation of SHP are effected from the specic economical, environmental and social conditions of the regions. Also, the planning assigns the characteristics of the SHP installation, which should be modied in order to minimize the negative impacts that are associated with their operation. 2.1. Economical impacts The cost of a SHP is dependent on size, location and standards although effective design can reduce it drastically. The sensitivity analysis provides clear evidence that the installation capacity factor, annual escalation rate of local market electricity price and reduced rst installation cost are the parameters that mostly affect the economical viability of a SHP station (Kaldellis et al., 2005). The power generation cost of SHPs is higher than from larger sized plants due to economy of scalesome instrumentation, control and monitoring systems have no size dependency (ESHA, 2005), so in order to make the SHPs competitive, especially due to the fast technology progress of the last 20 years, the situation is being improved (European Commission, 2002). The objective during the design of a SHP must be the energy production with the optimum utilization of the conditions that a region offers, including the economical optimization of the energy production system. Depending on the annual hydrological characteristics of a region, the

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 3

production uctuates from 75% to 125% of the midscale annual value connected to the kWhs produced and the price of kWh. In general, there are two ways for the optimization of the energy production cost: 1. Reduction of the investment cost: As the capital cost for the HP installation is signicantly high, simplifying and improving the plant design, with the least energy losses, can reduce the investment cost. There always exists the risk of failure because of the simplication, so consequently the energy production cost may rise rapidly. 2. Reduction of the management and operation cost: To face the competition it is reasonable to look for automatization techniques of the plant. In already existing units this can be done by the installation of modern, relatively cheap, equipment, which has to be included at the beginning of a plant design. By this way we can drastically reduce the daily supervision of an energy production plant. At the same time major issues come up, such as unemployment (So derberg, 2004). 3. Optimum sizing of the SH system: The size and the number of the turbines to be used is essential for the economical viability of the SHP. There are several relevant important scientic works in the eld (Kaldellis et al., 2005). As concerns the economical impacts of a SHP, these vary depending on many factors. Extremely important is the area, where the HP will be sited. With no doubt the plant will contribute to the economic development of the region (or regions). Even the opening up of a small road due to the plant will offer to the region a signicant economical impact. Moreover, the most important is the capability of producing cheap energy production. 2.2. Environmental impacts One GWh of electricity produced by Small Hydropower means a reduction of the CO2 emissions by 480 t (ESHA, 2005). Although numerous incentives exist to promote the development of hydros in Europe, there are barriers that limit their development like environmental constraints. The most signicant example is that of the water framework directive 2000/60/EC and its progressive transposition into the different national legislations. This directive, which obliges Member States to preserve the satisfactory ecological condition of the water of their rivers, has negative consequences on the electrical production of SHPs. The decrease that results is explained by the increase of reserved ows whose water cannot be put through turbines to produce electricity. On the other hand, EU countries must also take into consideration another European directive (2001/77/CE) that requires Member States to increase their share of renewable origin electricity production.

Besides the benets gained from SHPs construction and operation, signicant environmental impacts are also encountered (Koch, 2002; Labropoulou et al., 2005). Prevention or minimization measures for the adverse environmental impacts of SHPs mainly involve:

 

Ground: Minimization of ooded land area used as reservoir for SHP operation; decrease of land excavations and soil deposits inside the reservoir; disposal of collected sediments in the dam as soil improvement. Water: Assurance of maintaining minimal river ow downstream from the dam according to legislation; reduction of water residence time in the reservoir; deforestation of ooded vegetation from the lakebed. Fauna: (a) Fish habitats: installation of effective and attractive sh-bypasses, sh ladders or sh lifts for the safe passage of sh downstream or upstream from the dam; installation of aeration, heating or air conditioning systems that prevent sh from entering into the turbines and use of sh-friendly type of turbines; careful cleaning of riparian area and maintaining minimal water ow in the river downstream from the dam; (b) Other habitats: careful cleaning of riparian area; implantation of trees. EcosystemsFloraVegetation: Planting of new trees and replanting of existing ones; installation of sediment trapping devices before the reservoir; frequent cleaning of sediments and planning their transport downstream from the dam. Landscape: Construction of the SHP building using materials esthetically harmonized with ambient environment; underground construction of part of the SHP building; maintenance of minimal ow of river in its old shoreline; planting of trees. Microclimate: Planting of new trees and replanting of existing ones. Air emissions: Use of environmental-friendly machinery; sound isolation; application of personal measures of protection; deforestation of ooded vegetation; sprinkling the worksite with water during the stage of SHP construction to avoid dust production and spreading. Waste: Regular scheduling of transporting the sediments resulting from the cleaning of dam; disposal of used mineral oils by companies, which are legally authorized for their collection, transportation, and nal disposal.

In most cases there are ways to avoid the derangement of the natural environment from the SH plants installation and operation. Some environmental impacts during specic operations of a HP are represented in Tables 2 and 3. As a positive RD&D result for ecology, we can for instance consider (TNSHP, 2005):

   

the development of techniques allowing an optimal integration of the equipments into the environment, the design of sh friendly turbines, the reduction of noise by adopting low-head turbines without gearbox, the use of biodegradable oil.

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] Table 2 Environmental impacts during the installation of a SHP Events during construction Geological surveys Existing vegetation cutting Enlargement of existing roads Earth moving Tunnels excavation Permanent lling material on slopes Embankment realization Creation of temporary earth accumulations Temporary displacement of persons, roads, electric lines Realization of roads and sheds for the yard Water courses dredging Temporary diversion of rivers Source: ESHA (2004). Persons or things affected Wildlife Forestry General public Site geology Site hydro-geology Site geology Aquatic life, site hydro-morphology Site geology General public Wildlife, general public Aquatic ecosystem Aquatic ecosystem Impact Noise Alteration of habitat Creation of opportunities, alteration of habitat Slope stability Alteration of groundwater circulation Slope stability Alteration of river hydraulic Slope stability Priority Low Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Low Negligible Low Medium High

Visual intrusion, wildlife disturbance Alteration of habitat Alteration of habitat

Table 3 Environmental impacts during the operation of a SHP Events during operation Renewable energy production Watercourses damming Permanent works in the riverbed Diversion of watercourses Penstocks New electric lines Ripraps Levees Flow rate modication Noise from electromechanical equipment Removal of material from streambed Source: ESHA (2004). Persons or things affected General Aquatic Aquatic Aquatic Wildlife General Aquatic Aquatic Fish General Aquatic public ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem public, wildlife ecosystem, general public ecosystem, general public public life, general public Impact Reduction of pollutants Modication of habitat Modication of habitat Modication of habitat Visual intrusion Visual intrusion Modication of habitat, visual intrusion Modication of habitat, visual intrusion Modication of habitat Alteration of life quality Improvement of water quality Priority High High High High Medium Low Low Low High Low High

Furthermore, as it is obvious, a better environmental integration will have a positive effect on administrative procedures making easier to obtain the required construction and operation authorizations. 2.3. Social impacts During the last two decades it has become clear that the operation of RES plants creates strong poles of local development and environmental step up with multiply and measurable impacts for the local authorities (Papadaki et al., 2003; Maria and Tsoutsos, 2004; Tsoutsos et al., 2004). More analytically: 1. The RES plants contribute, directly or indirectly, to the local employment. 2. The operation of RES plants offers a serious income to local municipalities (2% to its turn) but also to the local economy in general. 3. The construction of RES plants in a region has compensative benets except the direct economical incomes from the local employment:

 

These are constructed or/and improved, without any signicant load for the local important works (road and electrical networks, telecommunications, etc.). Several utility works are constructed for the local authorities and also proportional donations offered from the investors. In remote areas SH can create economic opportunities for local residents by using local materials and labor. Compared to thermal facilities SH would provide local employment in the construction of civil works. New alternative and protable forms of tourism in the region are promoted, like ecotourism (since SHPs is a multipurpose project).

3. Major issues for the siting of small hydroelectric plants The energy supply is a major parameter for the planning and siting of a HP, of course within the current economic constraints.

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 5

The basic principles in order to make the optimum spatial choice of a SHP are based on the need to achieve the optimum development of the energy source (which is renewable but not unlimited) but in parallel has the least negative environmental impacts. Some researchers thump that only through the projection and the implementation of specic parameters and procedures, based on the principles of urban and spatial planning, a fair and efcient solution could be sustainable. The fact is that, the correlation of the land use planning with the energy system is intensied due to the claim of the central governments that a signicant share to cover the energy needs should be accompanied by the development of local energy plans. As concerns the ability of strategic spatial planning connected to the strategic energy choices, the development of energy plans seems to be feasible and to serve a double aim:

It offers an effective role to the long-term spatial goals clarifying their content of usage for their cohesion, their competition and the sustainable development of the national space; It expedites the energy middle-term programming of plants, which are eligible to the Community Support Framework (CSF), providing the necessary frame for their geographical integration; in parallel it maximizes their managerial efciency with synergies of horizontal type.

plans to manage future energy questions. The size of responsibilities of various planning sectors among the different levels of local governments, constitutes another important question that is directly linked to the important energy implications. In UK, as in most western European countries, there is a tendency of fusion historical and erratically small societies. This caused a lot of reactions as long as it concerns the interest of citizens for the creation of political plans that will manage with strategic opinion energy issues. During 1970s the most remarkable change concerning the planning was observed in the external relations of planning with various categories of citizens. Indicatively big portion of public expressed the wish to be informed of the developments with regard to the energy questions, so that they could participate actively in the planning and the decision-making (Cope et al., 1984). The new planning approaches of HPs are supported not only by absolutely technocratic characteristics, but also by social characteristics, by economic requirements and impacts that will have for the citizens and in a mass of other parameters that are essential for their completed planning (Oud, 2002). Concerning climate conditions, in Greece, the high uctuation in the climatic conditions could cause many problems in the regular operation of a SHP. 3.2. The design of SHP projects The SHP planning procedure, because of its complexity, must not be spent in unnecessary questions. Moreover, the nal result should be acceptable by all the involved institutions. For the achievement of this objective, all alternative scenarios that have been worked out for the planning and the siting of a SHP must be discussed. In the discussions, all the planning parameters that are related with questions, such as technical, economical, social, and environmental ones are supposed to be included. The number of variables and parameters (usually large) is characterized by exceptionally big complexity and the composition of all elements for a successful rational result is a difcult and time-consuming procedure (Oud, 2002). In general, the suitable regions for HP siting are divided into three spread categories: (i) areas economically and socially sustainable, (ii) areas temporarily economically not feasible, but socially and environmentally developed, (iii) areas socially and environmentally questionable and not accepted. The European experience has proved that medium and large HPs are located in regions of high altitude or in distant depopulated cities with the nal aim being the least intervention in the natural environment. In the over-populated regions hydroelectric projects are multipurpose projects. With those plants, irrigatory or

The correlation of general energy planning with strategic spatial planning can help the multi-sector energy planning in specic thematic areas and terrains. In order to facilitate the exploitation of available energy sources the clarication of strategic priorities and choices for the spatial cohesion of the national space is essential. These priorities should be set out clearly and to come as a result of a wider consensus in order to constitute an instructive framework for the conguration of sectorial policies. In the prospect of such development, strategic national spatial planning recommends a tool that needs essential preparation in national, regional and local authorities, in the social and economical partners and generally in the society of citizens in order to face risks and the complete exploitation of occasions in the international environment that is determined so much by the globalization procedure and course the European completion and enlargement as much as from the internal reformation and development of the Greek society and economy (MEPPPW, 2004). 3.1. Energy planning modications During the decades that have passed the changes in energy planning resulted from various pressures for rapid energy growth in many European countries. These changes and their consequences, continue inuencing the ability of

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

other technical aims are given priority and the hydroelectric energy production is a minor priority. In these cases the cost against the plants advantages is much bigger and moreover we have bigger locomotion of populations. Of course, from the opinion of political planning, these types of plants have exceptional interest, but they are however one from a lot of the categories of existing HPs (Koch, 2002). The basic advantage that concerns the siting of the SHPs is the smaller areas required than those of a large HP. This means that the likely expropriations that will be needed will not be many and the demanded corresponding time for the transaction of the complete procedure will be also minor. Moreover, the changes that the wider natural environment will suffer will be on a smaller scale and this is very important especially when we refer to regions of a particular natural esthetic or protected region from special legal rules in which not only the residents but also the institutions are particular sensitized. However, all the parameters that immediately inuence the siting procedure of a HP are initially important. As it appears also from Fig. 1, from the main parts of a siting procedure are the bodies of implementation, public or private. Also it is very important, during the nal siting scenario, to determine the main social, environmental and technical measures. The cases of obstructing the procedure include all the cases that render impossible the siting of a HP in a region. For example, residents of a region may have signicant reactions to plant construction, because of its harmful effects. Many plants installations have stopped because of

Cases of obstructing the procedure Planning Procedure Criteria Legal framework

Siting Procedure Bodies of Implementation Public Private Measures Social Environmental Technical

Alternative Siting Scenarios

the reactions caused by local societies. In similar occasions we must examine alternative scenarios. One of the major parameters in the selection procedure is the sufciency of hydrological potential (Voivontas et al., 1998), which is correlated to the quantity and quality of the waters of the region. This question is always examined in relation with the needs that a HP has to accomplish. Then, three factors intervene in design procedure: local authorities, private investors and plant use. The local authorities in cooperation with the citizens of the region react when considering that the plant will cause environmental alterations in protected regions. The private investors are in charge of the investment plan that will be proposed for the realization of the plant. Finally, the feasibility of the plant will result from the energy production plan that is going to be realized. However, the total planning procedure for the HP siting cannot omit the economic parameters. Denitely, for the long-range and efcient operation of any plant, the investment should be economically feasible; otherwise the plant might not be attributed to the expected economical and environmental prots in the society. The whole procedure is structured by a large number of, usually self-dependent characteristics. The decoding and the rational combination of these characteristics are complicated enough and time-consuming. The rst group of characteristics includes the variables that are related with energy distribution for various aims and technical parameters for various energy forms. The second group describes the urban form. The third group includes the variables that interact between the two previous groups. The result of this reaction is, for example, the inuence between the dissemination of land uses and in the energy requirements for transport. In this model, the natural character and the availability of RES inuence land uses. For example, suitable localities for industrial development are determined by the sufciency in energy sources and especially in water sources. Also, in low demographic density regions, that are insufcient in electricity transmission and distribution systems, the available energy quantity is consumed in building installations. It is remarkable in any case that, according to the model, certain parts of energy matters develop so fast, so that the already enacted spatial frameworks cannot correspond in these changes (Cope et al., 1984). In Greece the JMD 13727/724/2003 is dened that SHPs (with capacity p10 MW1) can not be sited in traditional settlements, in areas that are included in historical regions and areas that belong to RAMSAR. Their location is permitted:

   
1

In In In In

areas within accepted urban plans; settlements with population less than 2000; settlements existing before 1923; areas outside the urban plans.

Fig. 1. Sections affect the HPs siting procedure.

See Ministerial Decision 12160-Ofcial Gazette B1552.

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 7

For the rational selection of a region it is important to be aware of the special characteristics that are related directly with environmental criteria. During the siting procedure, special care must be taken of the following regions:

     

Those that are characterized as National Parks; Archaeological sites; Natural landscapes; Regions of cultural heritage; Those that belong to the Natura 2000 network; Rare wetlands (Maria and Tsoutsos, 2004).

The way, in which the information of each candidate region in which a HP intends to be located is used, is presented in Fig. 2. It is notable that the total siting study should include three main backgrounds: theoretical, available, and technological. 3.3. Social and demographic criteria The projected gures of households and the population are critical for the planning, since it provides estimation for the energy needs of a country, a town or a settlement. The social factor in the case of siting any plant is very important. The increased public interest for environmental and social dimensions of the HPs has led to the direct attendance of public in decision making procedure. However, for the developing countries there is a difculty approaching SHPs matter. The experience has proved that plants are sited very often in regions whose residents can modulate an opinion about the siting procedure but they cannot participate in further decision making (Oud, 2002). There is a different attitude between island and mainland territories as concerns RES due to the following topics (Kaldellis, 2005):

not exist in mainland, since the large thermal power stations provide enough electricity to citizens. The introduction degree of RES applications (i.e. wind power) is quite different in these areas. In most islands there is a gradual penetration of wind turbines starting from the early small wind parks of PPC. For the mainland cases, a considerable number of huge machines have been rapidly installed in relatively closed areas, without appropriate respect for the local scenery esthetics (Kaldellis et al., 2005). Mainland people were much more conservative in their opinion, being mainly farmers and stock breeders. On the other hand, island people were much more openminded, since many of them were seamen, traders or working in tourism, thus contacting foreign people and developing new ideas.

3.4. Geomorphologic criteria For the incorporation of energy parameters in spatial policies, it is essential to determine the characteristics of land uses which are compatible with the efcient uses of RES. In this subject one can have two basic approaches:

 

to investigate the alternative energy impacts; in parallel to dene the characteristics of a formula with low energy needs, to include the planning and technical regulations for energy; it is more lawful.

In most islands there is a remarkable electricity production decit, especially during the season of summer tourism, impeding the life quality and the economic growth of local societies. This problem does

The combination of these two approaches determines nally the energy subject and it identies the main parameters in order to optimize the results. The two approaches are not completely independent; however, they can be combined and included in a completed energy plan. During the last years the energy consumption for transport (for less and smaller distances) and heating in buildings (more efcient domesticstructural structures) is minimized by clustering the areas. However, apart from the morphology and the provision of settlements of wider region in which a HP will be sited, the quality of ground, such as the percentage of soil

Siting of Water Energy Sources Solver Data Base

Theoretical Potential

Hydrological Map

Available Potential

Altitude map, towns, slope map

Technological Potential

Dams, reservoirs

Fig. 2. Exploitation of the available data of the candidate region. Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

erosion, due the fact that the soil retains all the essential installations and moreover it includes the entire technicalhydrologic system of the plant is also important. From the international experience in some cases it is known to have caused the ground to seriously subside during the construction works. For this reason it is essential to accomplish realized geophysical and geoelectrical tests, which will also help in the determination of stratigraphy above the ground and underground. Finally, it is important to know if the ground has been polluted by any annoying activity. For example, they may access in the ground hazardous contagious and toxic substances from pesticides used in the rural activities. These components can be transferred to water and alter the composition and its quality. 3.5. Technical and hydrologic criteria A completed plan for HP installation should be prepared to face possible changes in the future and likely problems that will result, so as to be viable and at the same time exible. Partially critical points that rise up are:

     

Changes in the free circulation of water of river as result of changes in the aquatic requirements and a better comprehension of relevant ecological parameters. Increase of the hydroelectric energy capacity, with a view to serve more applications peak hours, when the electricity price becomes highest. Gradual increase of reservoirs precipitation and dams preservation. The inuences of climatic changes in the safety of dams and the hydro energys value that is produced. Careful placement of conductors of irrigation of water, so as to draw from the area where the quality of water is better. Careful regulation of dam that is placed in the river, so as to be release only the required quantity of water.

The HP installations are supposed to forecast likely extension of the powerhouse in case this is essential. 3.6. Siting procedure of hydroelectric stations From the above, we can modulate a major plan of the siting procedure of a HP (Fig. 3). The complete procedure has been divided into three main stages: 1. Examination of the present situation of the candidate region: Includes all the proper procedures required for

Increased need for ood-preventing control, as a result of the increase of value of infrastructures required and also of the climatic changes.

Proposed Scenario

1st stage

Examination of the present situation of the candidate region

Quality and dimension of the hydrological potential (adequate?)

Climatic conditions,human needs, land quality, adjacent land uses

Yes

2nd stage

Requesting for economical resources Yes No

Finding out possible investments

No

Yes No Legal titles of the exclusive use of the region (leasing contracts, title deeds, interposition
license, compulsory expropriation etc.)

Convention to the law framework

1.Procedure PEEE and AET 2.Ensuring installation license 3.Ensuring operation license

Procedure Termination

3d stage

Yes

Scenario Accepted

Alternative Scenarios

Fig. 3. Siting procedures of a hydroelectric plant in a candidate region. Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 9

ascertaining if the candidate region is suitable for the HP siting. The major criteria that have to be ensured is the hydrological potential of the area and the condition of its physical characteristics (soil quality, climate, etc.). In addition, we have to keep in mind the current and future needs of inhabitants of the area, where the plant is going to be sited and also other regions that are sited in the range of the plant. 2. Requesting for economical resources: It concerns the insurance of the economical resources for the plant installation. In Greece, plants installation is nanced from the Public Program of Investments or from the investment programs of big public corporations (in this case from PPC). Also, the economical resources may come from CSF or from the direct nancing of EU (Skagiannis, 1994). In case we cannot nd any economical resource, the procedure is aborted. 3. Final siting stage: This stage includes the most complicated and ddly procedures. The main part of this stage is the ensuring of Legal titles of the exclusive use of the region. Also the whole procedure has to be linked with the legal framework, which is a stage that includes the ensuring of the licenses. Because of the complexity of the previous two stages it is possible for the procedure to be terminated. Finally, as it is obvious, all the administrative steps have to be linked with the basic spatial principles and the Greek laws. 4. License procedure of hydroelectric plantslegal aspects and applications The jurisprudence of the Hellenic CoS demands the existence of wider spatial plans, to consider the approval of administrative acts for the RES electricity production. Completed spatial plans become acceptable from the CoS as an essential term for sustainable development and environmental protection. However, the rational siting of a plant should be planned within the framework of the principle of the preventative protection of the environment in combination with the coestimation of environmental impacts of the plant and with the carrying capacity of the region (Melissas, 2004). Therefore, to protect important and fragile ecosystems, a greater spatial planning is compulsory, which also must take into consideration these principles. The CoS abates the administrative instruments of AET (composite administrative act of evaluating the environmental impacts) that are able to cause destruction of the natural or/and manmade environment. ATE is an administrative act with special clauses, whose validity is depending on the maintenance of specic assigns (location, size and general characteristics of the plant) from the side of recipient (Koutoupa, 2005). This is conducive to General, Special and Regional Plans of spatial planning (they are led down by the L.2742/1999Spatial planning and Sustainable Development), mainly due to lack of will of politicians.

On the contrary, if one of the aforementioned spatial tools were applied, we would directly receive the AET, without preceding evaluation of any study or the approval of any other administrative act. Moreover, licensing procedure of HPs, including SHPs, would be briefer and would not be impeded by such a number of administrative acts. 4.1. Licensing procedure, spatial planning and siting The legal framework for the evaluation of the environmental impacts and the enforcement of the use of ETs is given by articles 3, 4 kai 5 of the Law 1650/1986 and then specied by the Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD) 69269/ 5387/1990 (about the classication of plants and activities, the EIAS and the Specic Environmental Studies) and by the JMD 75308/5512/1990 about public information. Due to the rst enforcement of the previous legal acts several problems were pointed out. The evaluation of environmental impacts from specic plants is already an appropriate condition for the prevention of environmental destruction within the framework of the principle of sustainable development (Florou, 2005). The siting procedure of HPs, including SHPs, is an example showing the complexity of the Greek legal system, concerning plants installation in general. At the same time, it shows which spatial planning tools are utilized in Greece nowadays. For example, the Law 2742/1999 gives the main directions of spatial planning implementation, which are inactive causing problems to the evolution of the licensing procedure nowadays (Giannakourou, 2001). Although the potential spatial impacts of almost all the types of HP are not directly taken into consideration, it is almost certain that environmental impacts predicted from the operation of HP may also have indirect spatial impacts. Moreover, the mechanism of approval of ETs along with the Preliminary Environmental Estimate and Evaluation (PEEE) controls land uses. 4.2. Analyzing the licensing procedure according to the precedent legal framework According to the pre-applied legal framework, the licensing procedure included the following steps: Substitute of national planning SoNP ! AET ! Operation license ! Installation license: The institution of pre-approval of the specic installation site introduced in the Greek legislation, simultaneously with that of AET with the Law 1650/1986 and the JMD 69269/5387/1990 were used by the jurisprudence of the CoS as a complex mechanism of control of landplanning and environmental legality. The existence of the above institution obviously upgraded the requirements of its valid application. At the same time it demonstrated on the one hand, the numerous specic imperfections of the

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

adaptation of the national legal system harmonized to the European one and on the other hand the lack of a legal system of sustainable land-planning (Papapetropoulos, 2005). Furthermore, the institution constituted a source of inspiration for some of the most interesting principles of abrogative control in the jurisprudence of the CoS. More precisely it is the principles of the prevention or preventive action, the total approach environmental protection, the specialized content, the scientic documentation of EIAS and above all the sustainable development, which includes all the previously mentioned (Siouti, 2003). The SoNP for the plants of category AI was edited after the completion of EIAS, while for the plants of category AII was edited by the completion of a simple questionnaire. However, the SoNP intimates the administrative approval of ETs. Therefore when the plant is already sited, the administration is committed by the decision in question, regarding its further choices. Consequently, the completion of EIAS and the resulting AET are inevitably limited in the reduction of only unfavorable repercussions that is expected to be caused. According to the CoS, provided that the preliminary approval siting constitutes a substitute for wider spatial planning with which the State is obliged to proceedbased on the respective direction included in the article 24 of the Hellenic Constitutionthe administration decision for the plant siting should be based on EIAS and not on a simple questionnaire (CoS 1520/1993 and Assimakopoulou, 1994). Based on the pre-applied legislative regulations, the composition of EIAS led to the pre-approval of the specic installation of a plant. Decisions of the CoS have provisionally accepted the point-like siting, even if it is claimed that this should normally be based on spatial plans. With the term point-like we mean individual plant siting, in contradiction with a Land Uses Plan that determines overall the territorial structure of a wider area (Economou, 2001). This term is used in cases that the siting of a plant is of vital importance exceptionally for the candidate region. At this point, the environmental impacts of a plant can be small. It is however, possible that a plant along with other adjacent plants cause joint serious environmental impacts. In this case the cancellation of the pre-approval of the specic installation of a plant or of ETs may be proceeded with and the whole siting procedure stopped. 4.3. Analyzing the licensing procedure according to the legal framework in force Consequently the pre-current licensing procedure was inexplicit as it was divided into two stages: the stage of SoPN and the stage of AET (Koutoupa, 2005). Therefore according to the legal framework in force (Law 3010/2002), the SoNP is actually abolished since the location of the plant was nally decided without a

preceding study of environmental impacts but only with a questionnaire. Moreover, according to the introductory report of the Law 3010/2002, the legal nature of SoNP caused particular problems and implications both in the EU and the national juridical authorities because of the interpretation that prevailed for the estoppel of the realization of a plant or activity. At the same time, SoPN does not correspond to the requirements for the environmental protection and management of environmental means, since it was oriented towards very general planning directions. Thus, it did not help in a way friendly to the environment (Florou, 2005). For all the above reasons, although the SoNP is replaced by the act of the PEEE, they both share certain common elements. One of them is the spatial element, since the environmental impacts resulting from the approval of a plant or activity given beforehand are studied in both acts (Melissas, 2004). The PEEE is the point of view of the administration as to the place, the size, the type, the applied technology and the general technical characteristics of the plant, while it constitutes the opinion of the accumulative action plant in combination with other plants. It is a simple preparatory action of administration, which does not constitute selfcontained executive administrative act (Melissas, 2004). With PEEE it is not anticipated that the plant will be installed without fail (as it happened with SoNP), thus the possibility of zero solution is adopted (Koutoupa, 2005). The nal opinion of the administration is incorporated in approval of AET that constitutes essential prerequisite for the realization of a plant or activity. The current procedure is as follows: AET PEEE EIAS ! Installation License ! Operation License: The PEIAE for the plants of categories AI and AII is realized with completion and the approval of EIAS. The problems however arise before AET. In recent decisions of the CoS, the authorization of installation of a RES plant, is canceled rstly because it should have preceded the approval of Specic Regional Frameworks of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, or secondly because the candidate region could be characterized as Area of Organized Development of Productive Activities (AODPA2). Therefore, without the accomplishment of one from the above spatial tools, the jurisprudence does not accept relative decisions of AET that are pending. The CoS also points out, that the authorization of installation is only allowed if a Total Energy Study is conducted beforehand at a prefecture or a wider administrative region in which energy and not only needs about to be covered by the plants are quantied (The CoS, 2569/ 2004).
2

AODPA is a tool of specialization of the land planning system.

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 11

Furthermore, the abatement of the AETs also comes up in case of SHPs; the CoS (3995/2004) requires the installation of a SHP of total capacity 4.6 MW in Tzoumerka region. The specic plant was designed as a part of a four hydroelectric plants group, already existing in Kallaritikos River and its branches. In general the decision of annulment of the plant is based on the following reason. In the absence of co-estimation of the elements from existing studies by the responsible bodies of Administration, which proved that the integration of a SHP in the group of the already installed plants would have unfavorable environmental impacts in the region of Tzoumerka. In fact, a special characterization (mountainous area of developing soft forms of tourism) has been attributed to the region and for reasons of environmental protection integrations combined with other plants, that could possibly overload environmentally the region and disturb its carrying capacity, should be avoided. Fig. 4 summarizes all the above, and explains the current procedure during the siting of a HP, including a SHP, via current legislative tools. Besides, it incorporates the conditions and the requirements set to date by the existing relative jurisprudence, which requires the application of laws regarding land planning. The conditions and require-

ments also pertain to published acts under the precedent legal framework but at the same time they inuence published acts under Law 3010/2002 and the incorporation of PEEE in the AET. 4.4. The evaluation procedure of the environmental impacts of hydroelectric plants The approval of ETs constitutes the major point in the licensing procedure of all HPs. The AET and the EIAS can guarantee the valid and correct predictions of negative environmental impacts of every plant when they are used jointly together. However, the EIAS is conducted after PEEE, for which the general and special directions of spatial policy, the environmental sensitivity of the region, the positive impacts for the natural and manmade environment, etc. are taken into account. More precisely, according to the JMD 11014/703/2003, the approval of ETs is based on the evaluation of the environmental impacts of plants depending on the category in which they belong. The JMD 15393/2332/2002 determines that the categories are: A1: Environmental harmful effect of very high risk. A2: Environmental harmful effect of high or intermediate risk and

Candidate region for siting

PEEE Procedure

Total Energy Study (CoS 2569/04)

No

Evaluation of available elements of spatial plans of the region (CoS 3995/04)

No

Elaboration of Spatial Plans and Sustainable Development (L. 2742/99) (General, Special or Regional or AODPA) Yes

No

Yes

1. Approval of Environmental Terms

2. Providing of the Installation License

Annulment of Proceedings

3. Providing of the Operation License

Fig. 4. Alternative paths for the licensing of hydroelectric plants, including SHPs (after L. 2742/99). Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]]

B3B4: Environmental harmful effect of low risk. Especially, HPsX8 MW, so even some SPHs belong to A1 category and SHPs 18 MW belong to the other categories. It is mentioned that, according to the above Hellenic legislation, even the SHPs could be included in one of the four existing categories (or sub-categories). So a favorable treatment for SHPs does not exist. Based on these categories, the approval of ETs follows the procedure that is described in Figs. 5 and 6. More specically according to JMD 15393/2332 these are classied depending on their capacity in the categories of Table 4. The AET for the plants of category A is approved by the Minister of EPPPW and the acting Minister in ofce, as well as by the General Secretary of the Region. The submission of supporting documents is not enough for the environmental licensing of category B plants. Furthermore, the submission of Environmental Report is required, where the harmonization to the legal acts regarding environmental protection is documented. With the decision of the responsible Prefect, which is approved by the General Secretary of Region, the Local Authority (mainly Municipality) can possibly be commissioned to do the approval of ETs, provided that they have the necessary administrative service available. Therefore according to the above categorization, the procedures for the approval of the ETs of HPs, including

SHPs, follow different directions, which are described in Figs. 5 and 6.

5. Conclusions SHPs are amongst the softest environmental plants with the major environmental benets (reduction of the emissions of Greenhouse GasesGHGemissions, exploitation of natural resources and creation of new water biotopes). To these benets one could add several technical, economical and social benets. Unfortunately, despite the great potential of SHPs, European governments do not consider them as their rst priority, mainly due to the high RTD maturity, the risk economic analyses and their potential negative impacts on river activities like shing. Besides the current insufcient regulative framework of the energy policy limits the rational dissemination and understanding of the benets of hydroelectric energy; the prerequisite to improve this framework is the understanding of the long-term advantages of these plants and the knowledge of the real environmental impacts. As far as the legal system is concerned, the problems are detected in the complex licensing framework, in the timeconsuming legal acts and the lack of the favorable legal treatment of SHPs; especially the involvement of many administrative bodies, and the bureaucracy during the licensing procedure blocks the RES promotion.

Category A* Premeditation of Environmental Impacts (type II)

Subcategory 1

Subcategory 2

PEEE Procedure () No
Syntax of Spatial Plans (SoSP)? Evaluation of available elements of spatial plans of the region (EAESPR) -CoS 3995/04Total Environmental Study (TES) CoS 2569/04-

Yes () Yes Approval of Environmental Terms

+ EIAS (type II) If No [+] Annulment of proceedings

* Except plants that belongtothe Natura 2000 Network andregions of special programs of environmental management

* PEEE is not required when siting isanticipated by law or approvedspatial plan (article 6, L.3010/02)

Fig. 5. The licensing course for HPs of category A. This category is separated in subcategories 1 and 2 depending on the tank and the driver of deviation of the HP (Table 4). Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] 13

Category B* Premeditation of Environmental Impacts (type II)

Subcategory 2 (withjustified decision of the Department of Environment of the Region)

Subcategory 3

Subcategory 4

PEEE
TES EAESPR + () EIAS (type II)

() SoSP

Environmental Report

If () + ()

AET (from the Prefect)

AET (from the G. S. of Region)

* Except plants that belong to the Natura 2000 Network

Fig. 6. The licensing course for HPs of category B. In category B HPs can be classied in subcategories 3 or 4 (Table 4). The inclusion of a subcategory 2 for a HP in subcategory 3 is possible, if this is decided necessary by the responsible Department of Environment of the region. Table 4 Categories of hydroelectric plants (JMD 15393/2332) Hydroelectric plants Category A Subcategory 1 Tank TX1.000 000 m3 or deviation pump X1000 m or installed power X8 MW Subcategory 2 The rest except those that belong to subcategories 1 and 3 Category B Subcategory 3 Without a tank (only water pumping projects max high 2 m) and deviation pump o1000 m and installed power o1 MW Subcategory 4

Note: The accompanying works of the HPs (road construction, electricity transmission lines, etc.) if they belong to a higher subcategory drift the HPs.

Within a number of judgments, the jurisprudence of the Hellenic CoS detected the necessity of spatial planning, which was considered as a prerequisite for the accomplishment of specic activities, but also gave a wide interpretation of environmental impacts regarding large and complicated plants. In this way, a total assessment that is not constrained in the impacts that comes straight from the accomplishment of a specic plant is demanded. In order for the spatial planning to facilitate the exploitation of available energy sources, the clarication of strategic priorities and choices for the spatial cohesion of national areas is essential. These priorities should be set out clearly as a

result of a consensus in order to constitute a functional framework for the conguration of allocating policies. The accurate planning mainly concerned as spatial planning, is determinant for the accomplishment of the sustainability principle and its three basic dimensions: social, economical and environmental. References
Assimakopoulou, M., 1994. The environmental impact studies within the recent decisions of The CoS. In: Law and Nature, vol. I, pp. 141152 (in Greek).

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 T. Tsoutsos et al. / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]] ]]] Papadaki, M., Andonidakis, E., Tsoutsos, T., Maria, E., 2003. A multicriteria decision making methodology for sustainable energy development. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 12 (5), 426430. Papadimitriou, G., Papakonstantinou, A., 2004. Reformation of the legislative framework for RES and best practices especially for Wind Parks /www.nomosphysis.org.grS (in Greek). Papapetropoulos, A., 2005. The jurisprudence formulation of the wider spatial planning /www.nomosphysis.org.grS (in Greek). Siouti, Gl., 2003. Environmental law. Ant. Sakkoulas editions, Athens (in Greek). Skagiannis, P., 1994. Planning Policy of Infrastructures. Stamoulis Publications (in Greek). So derberg, C., 2004. The cost-effective production in small hydropower plants /http://www.circa.comwww.circa.comS. Systemes Solaires, 2006. Small Hydraulic Balometer, vol. 174, August. Thematic Network on Small Hydropower (TNSHP), 2005. Proposals for a European Strategy of RD&D for Renewable Energy from Small Hydropower, 2005. Tsoutsos, T., Karapanagiotis, N., Mavrogiannis, I., Tselepis, S., Agoris, D., 2004. An analysis of the Greek photovoltaic market. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 (1), 4972. Voivontas, D., Assimacopoulos, D., Mourelatos, A., 1998. Evaluation of renewable energy potential using a GIS decision support system. Renewable Energy 13 (3), 333344. Cope, D., Hills, P., James, P., 1984. Energy Policy and LandUse Planning: An International Perspective. England. Economou, D., 2001. Spatial Planning IIntroduction in the Spatial Planning Policy. University of Thessaly, Volos (in Greek). ESHA, 2004. Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydro Site. /www.circa.comS. ESHA, 2005. Environmental Integration of Small Hydro Plants, /www.esha.beS. European Commission, 2002. Scientic and technological references. Energy Technology Indicators, DG RTD /http://www.cordis.lu/eesd/ scr/indicators.htmS. Florou, M., 2005. The new system of Environmental Assessment and enforcement of Environmental Terms /http://www.nomosphysis.org.grwww.nomosphysis.org.grS. Giannakourou, G., 2001. Recommendations on Law 2742/99the new legislative framework. In: Law of Spatial Planning, Urban Planning and Environment, University of Thessaly, Volos (in Greek). Kaldellis, J.K., 2005. Social attitude towards wind energy applications in Greece. Energy Policy 33, 595602. Kaldellis, J.K., 2006. The contribution of small hydro stations to the electricity generation in Greece: technical and economic considerations. Energy Policy, in press. Kaldellis, J.K., Vlachou, D.S., Korbakis, G., 2005. Techno-economic evaluation of small hydro power plants in Greece: a complete sensitivity analysis. Energy Policy 33, 19691985. Koch, F., 2002. Hydropowerthe politics of water and energy: introduction and overview. Energy Policy 30, 12071213. Koutoupa, E., 2005. Environmental Law. Sakkoula Editions, Thessaloniki (in Greek). Labropoulou, V., Karageorgopoulos, A., Kornaros, M., Tsoutsos, T., 2005. Environmental impacts from small hydro stationsthe Greek experience. Technika Chronika, Scientic Publication of Electrical Engineers, Technical Chamber of Greece, III, Vol. 12, pp. 924 (in Greek). Maria, E., Tsoutsos, T., 2004. The sustainable development management of RES installations. Legal aspects of the environmental impact in small Greek island systems. Energy Conversion and Management 45 (5), 631638. Melissas, D., 2004. Jurisprudence and legislative progress in the Environmental Law, Monthly Jurist Review Armenopoulos, vol. 12. Jurist Union of Thessaloniki, pp. 16531660 (in Greek). MEPPPW, 2004. General Framework of Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, Athens (in Greek). Oud, E., 2002. The evolving context for hydropower development. Energy Policy 30, 12151223.

Further Reading
Alpha MENTOR, 2003. Report of the SPLASH Projectreport on the status of site selection. Centre for Renewable Energy Sources, 1997. About RES development in Greece (in Greek). Engineering Work Group of the Thematic Network on small hydropower (TNSHP), 2004. European strategy document for Research. Technological Development and Demonstration in Small Hydropower / www.esha.beS. Hatzigeorgiou, E., 2005. Administrative practice and legislative barriers in RES development. examplesrecommendations. Energy and Law III, 5564 (in Greek). Hatzopoulou, I., 2005. Installation and operation of small hydro stations in forest and forest areas. Energy and Law III, 3243 (in Greek). Lehner, B., Czisch, G., Vassolo, S., 2003. The Impact of Global Change on the Hydropower Potential of Europe: A Model-based Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Please cite this article as: Tsoutsos, T., et al., Sustainable siting procedure of small hydroelectric plants: The Greek experience. Energy Policy (2006), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.10.015